Jump to content

Talk:Air well (condenser)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]

An interesting, well illustrated and well-referenced article. In general, it appears to be at or about GA-level.

I'll now review this section by section, leaving the WP:lead until last.

  • The first and third paragraphs appear to be OK.
  • The second paragraph is unreferenced. I've slightly modified the first statement; and I would suggest that we need, as a minimum, WP:verification for the "fog claim" and the "latent heat claim" - if you could produced one to verify the claim that dew is different from fog that would be even better, but I'm not insisting on this one.
I have added a reference to the Beysens/Milimouk article which discusses fog and dew at some length.
I have added a reference to the Nikolayev et al article which discusses the mathematics of high mass condensers at length including discussing latent heat. This article may be difficult to find without paying. I would not have thought that the point was controversial.
  • High mass collectors
  • The Zibold’s collector section appears to be confirmed by ref 9. However, ref 9 states that the stones were discovered by Zibold, whereas the first paragraph does not make it clear that Zibold was the discoverer.
I think I have clarified that matter. I have also added a reference to the Nikolayev et al article which has a bit more detail on the matter.  Done.Pyrotec (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Klaphake’s collectors - a number of claims are made that don't appear to be verified by refs 15 & 16. Unless I've missed it - there is no verification of speculation about German Secret police, the Cook railway, a meeting in London with the Premier of South Australia.
The reference to the Uncommon Lives site actually has several pages and it is necessary to go through them. I have now provided more specific links.  Done.Pyrotec (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • International Organization for Dew Utilization
  • First paragraph - Ref 26, Youtube, cannot be regarded as a reliable source, but there is no reason why it can't go into the External links section.
Point taken. I have moved the link to the External links section.  Done.Pyrotec (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second paragraph - this is unreferenced.
Reference added. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fifth paragaph is unreferenced.
Paragraph deleted. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seventh paragaph is unreferenced.
Paragraph deleted. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Active collectors -

.... to be continued.Pyrotec (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it will be next weekend before I finish this review. The article will pass, but there are a few minor fixes needed first; and I see that you are actively working on them.Pyrotec (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section appears to be satisfactory.

Satisfactory.

Summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


A interesting, wide-ranging article

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quaity of the article, I'm awarding GA status.Pyrotec (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]